Despite the hallelujahs, what this year’s [Value Voters Summit] ended up highlighting was not the resurgent power of Christian conservatives in the Republican Party, but how much their influence on the policy debate has diminished. As usual, most of the major GOP presidential contenders—even the unlikely figure of Donald Trump—came courting the crowd of 2,700 who’d registered for the event. But they offered little besides effusive praise for Kim Davis and utterly vague—if not utterly unrealistic—promises to champion religious liberties in the White House. When the summit-goers left Washington to scatter back to their hometowns across America, they left with no clear idea of what to fight for next—or how.

And let’s note the GOP contenders who avoided the whole bigoted circus, including Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina.

17 Comments for “Value Voters Summit: Road to Nowhere”

Despite the hallelujahs, what this year’s [Value Voters Summit] ended up highlighting was not the resurgent power of Christian conservatives in the Republican Party, but how much their influence on the policy debate has diminished.

Well, perhaps. But bear in mind that conservative Christians have managed to (1) move the so-called “religious freedom” debate from hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” to public officials in open defiance of Obergefell, and ensure that so-called “religious freedom” will be a plank in the Republican platform, and (2) cement Planned Parenthood defunding, even to the point of shutdown, as an article of faith for the Republican Party.

And let’s note the GOP contenders who avoided the whole bigoted circus, including Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina.

It will be very interesting to see how candidates who oppose conservative Christians on either issue (Christie, Graham, Fiorina, Kasich, and Pataki on Kim Davis; Bush and Kasich on government shutdown over Planned Parenthood defunding) fare in the race for the presidential nomination. I think that will be the test of whether conservative Christians have become toothless.

This being the guy who supposedly said he approves of Vladimir Putin’s leadership on the Middle East, I cannot help but give him some brownie points in his own quest to become our Putin. He’s honest, in a “what the hell is wrong with you” sort of way.

It will be very interesting to see how candidates who oppose conservative Christians on either issue (Christie, Graham, Fiorina, Kasich, and Pataki on Kim Davis; Bush and Kasich on government shutdown over Planned Parenthood defunding) fare in the race for the presidential nomination. I think that will be the test of whether conservative Christians have become toothless.

I think oppose is too strong a word. Republicans (especially bipartisans and would-be centrists) make a distinction between dissent and outright opposition. (Certainly Sen. Graham has made it clear that he is placing social issues on the back burner to run a campaign, indeed, even a national movement, on foreign policy. That does not mean he’s not willing to clean house 20 years later!)

Which is why the conservative right is so powerful. The moderates are more willing to ally with the extremists than vice-versa.

I do not admire Putin, I respect him. I believe he is intelligent and skilled in foreign affairs and has a foreign policy worldview that should be taken seriously on the merits by other world powers so that we may accomplish our goals with greater effectiveness.

I must respectfully disagree with your judgment on Putin’s morality, and suggest to you that it is not without cause that President Bush stared into Vladimir soul and considered him a good man. Both men support faith and religion in the name of social values, both have stood first and foremost for the interests of their countries, and both have committed evil in the name of their countries’ best interests. I admire President Bush a great deal. There is one difference between the two that means everything, and that is in their choice of friends. Bush is the one who reached out.

I don’t think Houndentenor commented on Putin’s morality. He drew unspecified parallels to Franco, Mussolini, and Pol Pot. By your own standards for respect, could not one say that all four of them were intelligent, skilled in foreign affairs, and had foreign policy worldviews that had to be taken seriously? Can such traits be found in immoral people? I may respect power with admiration or with revulsion. How about you?

Of all the idiotic things uttered by George W Bush, his comment about looking to Putin’s soul are the most troubling for me. He was clearly delusional. Putin is no more admirable than Stalin or Krushchev. He’s a brutal sociopath. That is dangerous. I do not respect such people. I do take them seriously and am wary of them, but respect is not a use I’d use to describe such people.

Of all the idiotic things uttered by George W Bush, his comment about looking to Putin’s soul are the most troubling for me. He was clearly delusional.

He either saw what he wanted to see or came to the wrong conclusions about what he saw. I’m beginning to think it’s the latter.

I am struck by the cynicism of Putin’s UN speech about Syria and his blaming of the US and Europe. Especially his statement that nobody cares about human rights. Why would he even bother to say such a thing? An alternative foreign policy of “realpolitik” by the US and Europe would be very easy, but it would make both Putin and Russia less powerful. No question he’s an ends justify the means person, but that’s what he wants? There is something else going on in his mind.

It’s not just gay people. It’s anyone not considered sufficiently Russian enough including anyone in a religion other than the Orthodox church, ethnic minorities, etc. Does that sound familiar? I hate to go all Godwin, but there’s very little difference between Russia today and Germany in the 1930s. I find it disturbing that anyone would admire that.

In fact, I think that a solid argument can be made that the ebb and flow of xenophobia is one defining characteristic of Russian history. Another defining characteristic, inextricably linked with Russian xenophobia, is a love/hate affair with Europe and European values that gives rise to a cultural schizophrenia.

The communist regime put a damper on the worst of it for 75 years or so, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, after a very brief period of glasnost, Russian xenophobia came roaring back.

Although I agree that the current situation in Russia is dangerous, and unlikely to end in anything but a disaster, Putin is nothing new.

The only bright spot in the picture, if there is one, is that most of the Jews got out in the “second exodus” during the years immediately preceding and following the Soviet Union’s collapse. Russians will have to find a different scapegoat.

I might add, speaking of Germany in the 1930’s, that we are seeing a rise in violent anti-Semitism in Europe in recent years. I can’t help but wonder whether the United States is headed toward another round of the 1930’s-style anti-Semitism (Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and all that) in our own country. I hope that is just cultural paranoia on my part.

In the U.S., it’s still somewhat taboo to overtly express (in public) racial or ethnic hatred.

The haters prefer a veil – often thin – of “im not racist, but” (which the right wing media is only to happy to offer up. A bit of plausible denibility.

So, a massive wave of pre-war style racism/anti-Semitism is unlikely in America – to the extent that plausible deniability is a social requirement.

Putin is ex-KGB (not unlike ex-mafia) and xenophobia/homophobia was part of the Soviet package.

Granted, the xenophobia and abuse of ethnic groups was seen as a “political” as opposed to a racial problem by the Soviet leadership.

The Soviet homophobia is tougher to analysis. Less research has been done on it.

Some of it was probably inherited from the days when the leadership was the Czar/Orthodox Church.

Stalin was especially puritincal about sexuality, but with subsequent Soviet leaders it is not entirely clear why the anti-gay laws and attitudes were backed by the Soviet Union (with the possible exception of Lennin and Trot)

Maybe, homophobia was politically useful…much like the xenophobia was useful.

It is certainly wise to understand how Putin thinks, but to admire him is just, plain stupid.

I was in DC for an Out & Equal Summit about a decade ago — when the FRC crowd’s political pull was at one of it’s peaks.

Our weeklong LGBT workplace equality conference was wrapping up as the “Value Voter” summit was about to begin — at the same hotel (DC Hilton… the one where Reagan got shot).

Grindr wasn’t a thing yet — but Craigslist M4M was… and even though 3000 gay & lesbian folks were there for a little over a week, the hook-up ads didn’t start to peak until the V V folks started to arrive.

It was also pretty funny watching them have to deal with LGBT people and big equality conference banners, etc. with all sorts of corporate booths handing out rainbow goodies.

One of the waitresses at the hotel restaurant told us that she was really glad our conference was there that week — because nobody tips when the other conference rolls into town.

Comments are closed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome

IGF CultureWatch is a blog that originated with the Independent Gay Forum, a group of writers and activists who focused on advancing LGBT legal equality and social inclusion beyond ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy. more